The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[tinybear]

That's because I believe that private gun ownership is not justified by the need to form a citizen's militia to defend the nation against a President or government suddenly turned despot. I think that's rubbish. I think the real reason why gun owners want to own guns is non-confidence in our law enforcement agencies and, to a lesser extent, the desire to use those guns as a hobby. All the high sounding rhetoric about defence of the nation, God-given rights...etc. are just a load of BS.

[Lou Minotti]

From looking at history, there seems to be no such thing.

From looking at history, you should be able to see why these are considered God-given, or "self evident" rights.

[Lou Minotti]

That's because I believe that private gun ownership is not justified by the need to form a citizen's militia to defend the nation against a President or government suddenly turned despot. I think that's rubbish. I think the real reason why gun owners want to own guns is non-confidence in our law enforcement agencies and, to a lesser extent, the desire to use those guns as a hobby. All the high sounding rhetoric about defence of the nation, God-given rights...etc. are just a load of BS.

It's both. Read the Federalists papers on this. Then, and only then, may you start to realize that what YOU are saying is what is "rubbish" and "BS". Maybe if you could ask relevent questions and start citing specifics, we can form a real debate and you will wake up to the fact that you're wrong.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Right or wrong, this hardly makes a difference. Ever heard of a thing called "principle"?

So then, the arguement that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a citizen's defense against a tyrannical U.S. government is simply a rhetorical device, a "principle" born from the success of the American Revolution, and not based on any practical or current reality. That's good to know.

Quote by: Lou Minotti Apples meets oranges.

Why? I've never stooped to saying someone hated America because they disagreed with my opinion. Why does it matter what particular opinion we're discussing?

Quote by: Lou Minotti No, you asked where it says that in the Bible.

And I'm still asking. Where does it say, in the Bible or anywhere else, that owning a gun is a God-given right?

Quote by: Lou Minotti Gun ownership will never equal racism, Sonart, no matter how many times you propose this straw man.

Why not? You're looking at it from a 21st century perspective in which racism is considered inherently evil. Which was my point. Until recently, racism was considered a standard, accepted and even honorable American value. Just like unrestricted gun ownership is considered a standard, accepted and honorable American value, when the real fact is is that the proliferation of guns in American society is a bane on our nation's existance. Once again, the United States is arguably one of the most violent, murderous societies on earth. Why would you be proud of that?


.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote from Sonart
"was my point. Until recently, racism was considered a standard, accepted and even honorable American value. Just like unrestricted gun ownership is considered a standard, accepted and honorable American value, when the real fact is is that the proliferation of guns in American society is a bane on our nation's existance. Once again, the United States is arguably one of the most violent, murderous societies on earth. Why would you be proud of that?"


Nobody in here ever claimed to be proud of crime.


What we do profess to understand is that it is the person wielding the gun commiting the crime, not the inanimate object.
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Sonart
"And I'm still asking. Where does it say, in the Bible or anywhere else, that owning a gun is a God-given right?"


Mant interpret the language in the constitution, and bill of rights as a recognition of this "thuth, that we hold self evident".


If, like you claim, these are priviledges, why do both above mentioned document use the word "right" to describe these priviledges?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton Bradley What we do profess to understand is that it is the person wielding the gun commiting the crime, not the inanimate object.

And I submit that our gun-addled cultural lust for firearms is part and parcel with our extrordinarily high rates of violent crime compared to most successful democracies.

Quote by: Milton Bradley If, like you claim, these are privileges, why do both above mentioned document use the word "right" to describe these priviledges?

First off, neither the Constitution nor it's Amendments mention anything about 'Truths we hold to be self-evident'. That was the Declaration of Independence, a nifty statement of intent that bears no legal weight whatsoever. And the 2nd Amendment qualifies the 'Right' to bear arms on the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia. So says the U.S. Supreme Court since 1939 and 10 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. Therefore, barring the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia, as defined by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, gun ownership remains a privilege.


.

[Lou Minotti]

Judicial activism means nothing. The founder father's views on this are clear. If we were all sitting around having a lager right now, and you were espousing this commie bunk, they would laugh at you.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart First off, neither the Constitution nor it's Amendments mention anything about 'Truths we hold to be self-evident'. That was the Declaration of Independence, a nifty statement of intent that bears no legal weight whatsoever. And the 2nd Amendment qualifies the 'Right' to bear arms on the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia. So says the U.S. Supreme Court since 1939 and 10 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. Therefore, barring the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia, as defined by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, gun ownership remains a privilege. .

Even I wonder how I made that blunder.


However, you never did address the point made about right, vs., priviledge.


We have a bill of rights, and rights cannot, by definition, be taken away. I suspect that of your side of this arguement was right, it would read "Bill of Priviledges". I also suspect that the Feds would have acted to disarm the populace before the year 2005.


As usual, just more new rhetoric intended to subvert the constitution.


I will just never understand why people like yourself do not move to a more oppressive country, and live under pre-existing restrictive laws, instead of trying to remove my rights. There is plenty of room all around the globe, in every type of climate where you can experience the type of oppression your desire. Why not move now, and save the stress of arguing over it.

[Gilligan]

[quote=Aaron Spicka]-For the security of a free state sounds to me like the well being of a state is in danger in some way of surrendering its freedom. And I certainly can't seem to understand how a well regulated militia can be applied to separate individuals. Even in an effort to be in congruence with the society of today, how can this amendment be stretched so far?

The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313
of title 32 [32 USCS | 313], under 45 years of age who are, or who
have made a declaration to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers
in the National guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are ---
(1) the organised militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganised militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members National Guard or the Naval militia.

The right to bear arms speaks for itself.

You don't agree that this amendment hasn't contributed to America's strength? Maybe it would help to remember that the second time we went to Iraq under Bush II, it was well known that the country had been 90 percent disarmed by the first Bush.

[Sonart]

Judicial activism means nothing.

{{yawn}} Unless it benefits conservatives, as in the Schaivo case. You think court rulings mean nothing? Then go ahead... violate a ruling.

Quote by: bandaid The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied

U.S. Supreme Court, 1939, United States v. Miller

--"THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.

THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS. THESE SHOW PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE." AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR
SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

ADAM SMITH'S WEALTH OF NATIONS, BOOK V, CH. 1, CONTAINS AN EXTENDED ACCOUNT OF THE MILITIA. IT IS THERE SAID: "MEN OF REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN JEALOUS OF A STANDING ARMY AS DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY." "IN A MILITIA, THE CHARACTER OF THE LABOURER, ARTIFICER, OR TRADESMAN, PREDOMINATES OVER THAT OF THE SOLDIER: IN A STANDING ARMY, THAT OF THE SOLDIER PREDOMINATES OVER EVERY OTHER CHARACTER; AND IN THIS DISTINCTION SEEMS TO CONSIST THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MILITARY FORCE." "--

We have a bill of rights, and rights cannot, by definition, be taken away.

I've seen nothing that removes your right to bear arms, provided that such arms are necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by Article I Section 8.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I will just never understand why people like yourself do not move to a more oppressive country, and live under pre-existing restrictive laws, instead of trying to remove my rights.

Since the as yet unchallenged Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment dates back to before I was born, it's always been the law of the land as far as I've been concerned and I'm content with it. If you, on the other hand, can't abide living under the law of the land, then perhaps it is you who should seek residence somewhere where people really value gun ownership... the Moslem mideast, perhaps.


.

[MerlinsByte]

BY TINYBEAR..I think the real reason why gun owners want to own guns is non-confidence in our law enforcement agencies and, to a lesser extent, the desire to use those guns as a hobby. All the high sounding rhetoric about defence of the nation, God-given rights...etc. are just a load of BS.

Merlin writes.... And your point is? Bush is in office. Assault type weapons are legal again. Hi capacity magazines are legal now. I have many guns for the reasons that you point out tiny and that I trust history not my government 100%. Now it’s not much of a threat. 20 years from now who knows? Yes the Muslim countries have well-armed citizens because their religion and way of life are being threatened. It would have been ,oh so much easier for us, if the citizenry could have been disarmed first.

You defeat yourself by your own argument Tiny.

Mb

[Chris]

The 2nd amendment is open to HUGE amounts of interpretation. It gives the right for the people to keep and bear arms, but also it doesn't place a limit on that right. So who is to say that billybob is going to get an AK47? This is a dangerous thing in an already gun obsessed USA.

I do not believe they were talking about any militia when they wrote it, I think it just goes "A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a ...??? state. The right for the people to keep and bear arms shallnot be infringed" that last part is the relevant term of the whole amendment. It says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "the people" probably meaning the same people they were talking about when they said "We the people"

[caspian88]

Well, the Second Amendment has no limit, because who could forsee where weapons would go in the future? I'm positive they felt that inventions and innovations would make muskets obsolete - they included patents in Article 1, Section 8, and Ben Franklin was a consummate inventor himself. Someone could find a way to make the guns more accurate, with greater range, deadlier bullets, etc, and I doubt that any weapons up to modern machine guns and assault rifles would have seriously perplexed the Jefferson crowd.

So, technically, I could acquire a nuclear weapon. The difficult part would actually being acquiring it - Congress can make it illegal to make nukes, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, and they can make it illegal to import nukes. So, where am I going to get one?

[Chris]

I would think the line should be drawn at rifles. Who the F needs a M240 grenade launcher? Even if you live in "da hood" you can takedown scores of thugs with a M4 5.56 (or AR15 equivalent)

Come on.

[tinybear]

Well, you'll need much more than a grenade launcher to even begin to win against a tyrannical government in the USA. That's my point. You can't possibly have any chance of winning against the US war machine. Our greatest safeguard is our system, our values nurtured over the past two centuries and education of our future citizens. With these in place if ever a President was crazy enough to turn against his own people, his generals and the whole US military wouldn't go along with it. He will be the one who is deposed and run out of office. That's how we protect ourselves against tyranny. Not by owning a few rifles.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Judicial activism means nothing. The founder father's views on this are clear. If we were all sitting around having a lager right now, and you were espousing this commie bunk, they would laugh at you.

What exactly is commie bunk? Are you still living in the cold war?

[tinybear]

Actually, Pooey, if you've been following the news in Hong Kong recently, Lou's comment which you have highlighted is quite similar to what China's National People's Congress has been saying for the past month: Never mind what the Basic Law says and never mind how HK's judges interpret it; we say the drafters of the Basic Law intented this and that's what it means.

[Lou Minotti]

Well, you'll need much more than a grenade launcher to even begin to win against a tyrannical government in the USA. That's my point.

Your "point" doesn't make any difference. All you have stated is that government has overgrown the people so we should just live with it. That's not a good point.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Since the as yet unchallenged Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment dates back to before I was born, it's always been the law of the land as far as I've been concerned and I'm content with it. If you, on the other hand, can't abide living under the law of the land, then perhaps it is you who should seek residence somewhere where people really value gun ownership... the Moslem mideast, perhaps.

Credit where credit is due. That made me laugh out loud.



Why don't you try addressing the question raised? This is the real issue at hand.


If as you claim, gun ownership is indeed a privilege, then why does the Bill of Rights use the word right in place of privilege?


Why is it called the Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of Privileges?

[Lou Minotti]

Since the as yet unchallenged Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment dates back to before I was born, it's always been the law of the land as far as I've been concerned and I'm content with it.

Like the yet unchallenged legitamacy of the Bush admin? For the tenth time: some UN loving judges doesn't impress me. The Founder Fathers were clear on this: I have a RIGHT to own a firearm. If you don't like it I suggest you move somewhere with a more fascists government.